Skip Navigation

Blog

City Council Meeting and Work Session - Monday, October 5, 2009

October 8, 2009 at 7:45 pm
By admin

Jane McWilliams, LWV Observer - with the assistance of her sister, Helen Spiegelman

The council held a closed meeting at 6:30 pm to consider “offers or counter offers for the purchase or sale of real or personal property – MNDOT property located at the corner of Highway #3 and Second Street.” When the mayor later called the council to order in open session, no mention was made of the closed meeting. All members were present for all meetings.

During public comments two people spoke. Victor Summa voiced concern about lack of transparency in the announcement and procedures of the Rental Board of Appeals meeting scheduled for 6:30 p.m., Thursday, October 8. Two matters will be taken up:  a request for a variance and the denial of a rental license. Vern Rippley said that instead of charging a fee for street lights, these expenses should be included in costs paid through taxes. He believes fees would be unfair to schools and churches who do not pay taxes.

As has become the practice, the bulk of the actions for the evening were on the consent agenda. The council removed one item from the agenda. A minor change was made in the wording of the resolution relating to a contract amendment with Yaggy Colby for construction services on the Mill Towns Trail Bridge affecting the city’s costs for this project funded though the parks fund.

Mendota Homes developer John Mathern, attorney Stephen Bubul representing the city, and Highland Bank representative John Wall were on hand to help the council decide how to respond to a request from Highland Bank for assistance in completing phase I of the Crossing project located on Highway #3 and Second Street. Highland bank sought funds for soil improvement, postponement of landscaping, and said it was willing to share the cost of purchasing the parcels owned by MnDOT.

During public comments, Don McGee reported that he had walked the area along the river between St. Olaf Avenue and Second Street. He said that because it ends at the north end, and there are serious access problems at the south (where second street, in effect, is a barrier between the river walk to the south and the proposed northern segment), it is not worth the expense of $100,000. Councilor Erica Zweifel said that according to the Park master plan booklet, this isn’t a priority. This doesn’t fit connectivity of trails.

A staff report had provided three options for the council to consider:  deny the requests by Highland Bank, approve the requests, or deny the requests as outlined in Highland Bank’s letter, but agree to pay $100,000 landscaping costs for city park improvements as part of Phase I. A motion by Councilor Rhonda Pownell to adopt staff recommendation #3 died for want of a second.  Councilor Jim Pokorney’s subsequent motion to approve staff recommendation #1 carried.

Following the vote, Mayor Mary Rossing said the Crossing property is a gateway to the city, and that it looks terrible. “We have an obligation to do something. An attractive site there would benefit the entire downtown."  Councilor Vohs wondered whether the council is ready to look at the contract and consider renegotiating it, depending on what is possible to be built there. Councilor Jon Denison said the project is not a high priority for him, that cleaning up that area isn’t as crucial as other places. Councilor Pownell noted that with the denied request, she would like staff and the property owners to “sit down and look for other ways to work together to improve aesthetics and to encourage development in a win-win.”

It appeared that this matter will come before the council again later.

The work session commenced at 9:10 and consisted of a discussion of the budgets of the HRA (Housing Redevelopment Authority) and Information Technology and the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The CIP supporting documents were not circulated to the public.

During reports from council and the city administrator, Joel Walinski noted that the council is invited to a tour of the parks on Saturday, October 10, 8:30- 11:00 a.m. He also announced that there are vacancies on the Charter Commission. Councilor Denison said it is important to thank staff for work they did protecting public documents. He supported staff “in the actions they took”. (He appeared to refer to the city’s suit concerning Victor Summa). He said that “when this is finished in 12 months” the city should look at it as a learning experience.

Councilor Pownell reported on the League of Cities’ legislative agenda and highlighted 3 issues the council might like to pursue. Several councilors had attended an open house to discuss the proposed half-way house for women in drug treatment. Councilor Betsey Buckheit noted that the neighbors in the area of the proposed site had concerns, primarily that there had not been early notification that this was being contemplated. Buckheit said that the city doesn’t seem to have much to say about where this service can be located.

Comments

  • October 8 2009 at 10:24 pm
    kiffisumma

    Jane: Thanks for continuing to note the seemingly disproportionate number of items appearing on the consent agenda. If this means that decisions are being reached prior to the council's 'legislative' session, it is of serious concern for the process.

    Can you explain the difference between the lack of report by the Mayor after the closed meeting in this instance, and the previous extensive report given after the closed session on the administrator's job evaluation?

    I have been under the impression that the open meeting law requires a summation/report at the next regular session, immediately following a closed meeting.

  • October 9 2009 at 1:48 pm
    Jane McWiliams

    Kiffi - Let's do some sleuthing on the question of what responsibility for informing the public about the content and results of a closed meeting are.

  • October 10 2009 at 7:11 am
    kiffisumma

    Jane: the information above is in MN Statutes , 13D.05, most specifically under subd.3, (3), which states: "to develop or consider offers or counter offers for the purchase or sale of real or personal property".

    The last paragraph of "C" under above citation states " an agreement reached that is based on an offer considered at a closed meeting is contingent on approval of the public body at an open meeting".

    Having not been at this meeting, I cannot tell if the discussions relating to the Crossing or MNDOT property satisfied the statute's requirement; at any rate the statute only says "at a public meeting" not at the next open public meeting.

    Is there a need for further "sleuthing"?

Add a comment

Name:*
Comment:*
The following fields are not to be filled out. Skip to Submit Button.
Not Comment:
(This is here to trap robots. Don't put any text here.)
Not URL:
(This is here to trap robots. Don't put any text here.)
Avoid:
(This is here to trap robots. Don't put any text here.)